What does it mean?

The notion of God prevents a man from ever undertaking such reckless craziness. It is for us to discover the many ways we can make use of the framework that enables us to live. Messing with the framework itself, is a really bad idea.

There's been plenty of reckless craziness undertaken in the name and service of God, my friend.

I think it is probably desirable that the great mass of folks who don't possess the full range of higher level human skills (for instance, those who lack a capacity for reliable self-regulation) not be left to wallow in idle atheism (or idol atheism, for that matter). Every fellow carrying around his own imaginary slavedriver is one less actual, material slavedriver we have to employ (which is sweet, because those types are always odious).

For the rest, I feel that men should revere the Gods, but place no faith in them.

You'll notice I was not actually referring to "God" (whatever that actually is), but to the notion of It. You may as well follow the way of the leprechaun, if you have no idea of the nature of what you are following.

In response to Wild's question: I'm not sure what you are asking. Atoms come apart all the time. I was trying to say that nothing is forbidden. If we can't do something, is is because we are incapable, not because we are being obstructed by God or deemed unworthy somehow. It is just that some things cannot be done (like trying to stop or reverse entropy). It is that ilimit of our capacity to enact change on the universe, where begins God's realm. He may as well have nothing to do with us, then, nor us with him.

The notion of God prevents a man from ever undertaking such reckless craziness.It is for us to discover the many ways we can make use of the framework that enables us to live.Messing with the framework itself, is a really bad idea.

What you mean here is understood, however insisting on using religious terminology makes it far more likely to be misconstrued.

It is quite possible to have the temperament described above while rejecting Godô entirely. Similarly, those who profess to know Godô's personal desires are among the least reverent people on Earth.

If everyone defines Godô in a manner that suites them, eventually it becomes vacuous.

~~~~~

What happened to the Nietzsche post? It raised some decent questions concerning the uses (and misuses) of his writing. It looked like it had potential.

Quote

It is that ilimit of our capacity to enact change on the universe, where begins God's realm. He may as well have nothing to do with us, then, nor us with him.

Why is it necessary to anthropomorphize the construction of the universe? That humans have limitations in no way suggests that a (male) deity inhabits a "realm".

We don't really "mess" with the framework though. Our actions have consequences. If you aren't mindful of the ecological conditions wthat are necessary to produce the natural goods and services (wind, water, etc. such that it can be understood as energy) upon which your civilization relies, then collapse is all but assured. It isn't like at any point people just started changing the way things work.

GM foods, irradiation of seeds, cloning, gender-reassignment, nuclear physics, tampering with weather systems, DDT, aggressive promotion of homosexuality, imposition of 'rights', genocide, ecocide, atmospheric space junk... These things and more tamper with the basic nature of things. In the long run, of course, reality will reign supreme. But that won't do anything for us, though, or the myriad species rendered extinct by our tampering irresponsibility.

GM foods, irradiation of seeds, cloning, gender-reassignment, nuclear physics, tampering with weather systems, DDT, aggressive promotion of homosexuality, imposition of 'rights', genocide, ecocide, atmospheric space junk... These things and more tamper with the basic nature of things. In the long run, of course, reality will reign supreme. But that won't do anything for us, though, or the myriad species rendered extinct by our tampering irresponsibility.

This was a good post.

Progress? That's just regressionTechnology? That's nothing new"Advance!" you scream insanely"Advance!" from this to what?

Another response to Wild (and an apology; my smart phone is the only way I have of getting online and its interface makes copying/pasting and quoting more difficult than it should be):

You get my point. I'm not trying to argue for a reason to anthropomorphize the universal mechanisms that keep everything the way it is necessarily. I'm just trying to draw a parallel between that immutable set of universal mechanicis and the traditional notion of God. You understand what I'm saying already.

And in response to crow's last question: Yes. Things do what they do because they can. If water could flow out of your glass, then it would. All things do everything they can, whatever it is. And, if they can't do something right away, they try over and over, until they can. I went for a hike recently (since it was one of the first days this year over 50 degrees and without much snow on the ground) and saw a lot of cliffs with newly dropped boulders. In the cracks of the cliff, water was still frozen, still expanding given the chance, tearing apart the rock further. After years, those cracks will break new boulders off the cliff, destroying it piecemeal. Evil is just as natural process as this. Why do evil? Isn't there a better way? Yes, but if there are alternate paths, they will be explored too, by any organism, or even simpler system.

That's just something I figured, maybe intuitively, but not with much thought, which is why it still makes sense to me after so much time. You know differently?

You get my point. I'm not trying to argue for a reason to anthropomorphize the universal mechanisms that keep everything the way it is necessarily. I'm just trying to draw a parallel between that immutable set of universal mechanicis and the traditional notion of God. You understand what I'm saying already.

I don't understand - you seem to be saying that there is nothing outside of the structure of that which exists. This is complete blasphemy in relation to the Western traditional notion of God for the last 1500 years.

If "God" is simply a metaphor used by you to denote your observation of universal lavs, why not drop "God" and simply state that you observe universal laws?

I do not understand at all why people feel the urge to redefine "God" into something they can be comfortable with. If one is to use it only as a metaphor, its only achievement is to make conversations needlessly murky.

What, are you now going to assert an objective existence of God while simultaneously voiding human linguistic experience?

This statement is absurd.

Quote

There's only one sin, really: Thinking that God is otherwise. Thinking that God is somehow capable of being changed by what we may think of him/it.

Sin? Oh dear, it's time for confession.

Anyways, that which is described by words does not change as the words do; the map is not the territory; the menu is not the meal; this has been made clear many times before...however, in context with my conversations with various people on here it occasionally seems that "God" is a synonym for "reverence towards understanding the structure of reality" - hence my question as to why the term is used.

If you have another understanding, please provide it.

Quote

Bear in mind that thinking about God doesn't changed this one way or the other. One can live a perfect life in accordance with his will, without ever having even heard of the word 'God'.